“Indeed when new technologies, or new business methods, appear, a common result is the decline or even disappearance of the old. Were the old deemed to have a constitutional right to preclude the entry of the new into the markets of the old, economic pro‐ gress might grind to a halt. Instead of taxis we might have horse and buggies; instead of the telephone, the telegraph; instead of computers, slide rules. Obsolescence would equal entitlement.

Taxi medallions authorize the owners to own and operate taxis, not to exclude competing transportation services. The plaintiffs in this case cannot exclude competition from buses or trains or bicycles or liveries or chartered sight‐seeing vehicles or jitney buses or walking; indeed they cannot exclude competition from taxicab newcomers, for the City has reserved the right (which the plaintiffs don’t challenge) to issue additional tax medallions. Why then should the plaintiffs be allowed to exclude competition from Uber? To this question they offer no answer”.

“Here’s an analogy: Most cities and
towns require dogs but not cats to be licensed. There are differences between
the animals. Dogs on average are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than
cats, are feared by more people, can give people serious bites, and make a lot
of noise outdoors, barking and howling. Feral cats generally are innocuous, and
many pet cats are confined indoors. Dog owners, other than those who own cats
as well, would like cats to have to be licensed, but do not argue that the
failure of government to require that the “competing” animal be licensed
deprives the dog owners of a constitutionally protected property right, or alternatively
that it subjects them to unconstitutional discrimination. The plaintiffs in the
present case have no stronger argument for requiring that Uber and the other
TNPs be subjected to the same licensure scheme as the taxi owners. Just as some
people prefer cats to dogs [entre
ellos, parece ser que el propio Posner],
some people prefer Uber to Yellow Cab, Flash Cab, Checker Cab, et al. They prefer
one business model to another. The City wants to encourage this competition,
rather than stifle it as urged by the plaintiffs, who are taxi owners.”

“There are enough differences
between taxi service and TNP service to justify different regulatory schemes,
and the existence of such justification dissolves the plaintiffs’ equal
protection claim. Different products or services do not as a matter of
constitutional law, and indeed of common sense, always require identical
regulatory rules.”

“The deregulation
movement has surged with the advent of the TNPs. Chicago (…) has chosen the
side of deregulation, and thus of competition, over preserving the traditional
taxicab monopolies. That is a legally permissible choice.”

4 comentarios:

Antonio, este párrafo es, a mi entendimiento, para enmarcar: “Property does not include a right to be free from competition. A license to operate a coffee shop doesn’t authorize the licensee to enjoin a tea shop from opening. When property consists of a license to operate in a market in a particular way, it does not carry with it a right to be free from competition in that market. A patent confers an exclusive right to make and sell the patented product, but no right to prevent a competitor from inventing a noninfringing substitute product that erodes the patentee’s profits. Indeed when new technologies, or new business methods, appear, a common result is the decline or even disappearance of the old. Were the old deemed to have a constitutional right to preclude the entry of the new into the markets of the old, economic progress might grind to a halt. Instead of taxis we might have horse and buggies; instead of the telephone, the telegraph; instead of computers, slide rules. Obsolescence would equal entitlement".